As I understand it, you can not trade on informatin that is not...

As I understand it, you can not trade on informatin that is not generally available, that if the information was known to the market, it would have a material impact on the price of the securities.

There is no mention in the Corporations Law of a need to make a profit for there to be insider trading. Hence all the arguements about the tiny sum made by Rene is irrelevant in the eye of the Law. However, obviously Rene and his lawyers will kcik up a fuss about this because it is what the average mum and dad will look at and more easily interpret or 'visualise' as insider trading.

Hence, you can still be guilty of insider trading even if you make a loss on a trade, if at the time of the buying you knew of 'inside information'. However, ASIC would never prosecute this because it would be silly.

On the scenario about a CEO getting run over ... well that, I dont think would be insider trading. The reason is because that is readily observable. In the case of Rene .. he was told by McGowen that the Qantas-impulse deal was with ACCC and that after telling Rene this, McGowen also told him that because he was inside that circle of'insiders'' Rene could not trade on it.

I think on simple principles, Rene knew of Inside information and traded on it. Hence guilty of Insider trading.

But casting a wider eye ... Geffa is spot on!!! this isnt a level playing field and there is no dount countless incidents of insider trading each day. Rene was just silly, careless of arrogant enough to get caught.